tivity on the carmel faul

epicenters of the 1811 and 1812 earthquakes. In those caves they found geological features that
appeared to be related to earthquake ac<strong>tivity</strong> including stalagmites with deviated growth axes,
fallen stalactites in an isolated area in one of the caves and hundreds of newly grown and still
active speleothems growing on older speleothems and breakdowns. Using the U-Th mass
spectrometry method, they dated three new speleothems from both caves and concluded that a
single event triggered their growth. They suggest two scenarios which could have reopened
former flow paths to the caves: (1) the 1811-1812 NMSZ earthquake series or (2) the
beginning of agricultural ac<strong>tivity</strong> on the surface in the early 1840s.
Following the Nia (Indonesia) earthquake of 2005, Aydan (2008), in his study of the
Gunung Sitoli Cave noted quite a few earthquake related features, which he found to be newly
formed and which he believes to be associated with that recent event (ruptured columns and
stalactites, fallen stalactites and rock blocks and separated slabs with a new growth phase along
them). Some of these features were newly formed on top of old ruptures and breaks, which he
associates with other seismic events in that highly active region.
All of the studies cited above are part of a growing body of evidence. They support the
growing belief that speleothems could be very good archives of seismic ac<strong>tivity</strong> in their
respective regions. Two main considerations should be taken when approaching this method of
dating paleo-earthquakes, namely the various other mechanisms that could cause damage in
speleothems, and the not yet fully understood mechanisms which allow for the rupture of most
speleothems.
1.2.2 Basic assumptions for paleoseismic research in Denya Cave
Following the above mentioned work of Kagan et al. (2005) in the Judean Hills, which
provided ages consistent with independent evidence for strong earthquakes, similar research
techniques were applied to Denya Cave in order to examine paleoseismic ac<strong>tivity</strong> on the CF.
While there is some similarity between the two areas, there is also one major difference, which
is the abundance of paleoseismic evidence for the DST. As noted above it contributes to the
credibility of results, whereas paleoseismic evidence on the CF for the Quaternary is virtually
non existent. The assumption is made for Denya Cave that success of a previous study allows
for an attempt at reconstructing earthquake data in the Carmel region using the same methods.
Furthermore, as cited above, studies of this kind from around the world validate this method of
dating paleo-earthquakes (e.g. Postpischl et al., 1991; Lemeille et al., 1999; Panno et al., 2006)
and evidence of broken speleothems due to recent earthquakes is likewise well documented
(e.g. Gilli et al., 1999; Kostov, 2002; Aydan, 2008).
12